DEVELOPING POLICY FOR SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT

USING SPATIAL MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS

Zubaidah Bukhari, Ahmad Rodzi Mahmud, Noordin Ahmad,
Abdul Rashid Mohamed Shariff
Spatial and Numerical Modeling, Institute of Advanced Technology,
Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Email: zubaidabukhari@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Planners and decision makers often involve in making choices among
alternatives. A lot of factors need to be considered before choosing the best
school site. This study delves into a school site selection process to establish a
systematic public school using spatial multi-criteria decision analysis
(SMCDA) focusing in school safety. The implementation of the AHP method
for SMCDA has shown the capabilities of decision making process. SMCDA
allows combination between constraint and criterion maps using weighted
linear combination (WLC) to generate a suitability map. Mukim Batu which is
located in Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (WPKL) has been selected as
the study area. Suitability scores were ranked on a scale for 1 (not suitable) to
5 (most suitable). The final suitability model outputs were compared with field
verification data and found to be reliable

Keywords: site selection; multi-criteria analysis; spatial analysis model

Introduction

One of the factors that ensure a good quality in education is a systematic plan
developed and well equipped school site. This factor has proven to be an important
indicator in students achievement. However, locating the best school site is always a
problem (Church & T.Murray, 2009). There are a lot of processes to be conducted
before the suitable school site can be selected. The selection of school site has been
normally carried out by many departments involving the district education office
(DEO) and the state education department (SED); before submitting it to the ministry
level and the economic planner unit to be approved. This multilevel method has some
weaknesses such as time consuming, no transparency in the site selection process and
the planners have no idea on the location of schools (Aziz, 2004). Planners and
decision makers need to consider many factors such as size, access/traffic, utilities,
shape, security/safety, costs, locations, noise levels, topography/drainage and soil
conditions/plant life (Alaska Department of Education, 1997; Public Schools of North
Carolina, 1998). In many cases, the information comes from different agencies which
are not properly organized. Although it can be done but considering all of the
important criteria and factors in school site selection, it is almost impractical because
of time consuming and heavy work load amongst the committee members. Therefore,
in some cases these have caused the selected school site for school to fall in areas that
have been used for contaminated sites (Muhammad, 2008).
Today, with the advancement tool in Geographic Information System (GIS) and
sophisticated computer technology, a site selection and land suitability become an
uncomplicated assignment for planners. Broadly defined, land suitability analysis
aims to identify the most appropriate spatial pattern for future site location according
to specify requirements and preferences of some activities. The land suitability
analysis is an effective method in the planning development based on various
specified criteria (Joerin, Theviault, & Musy, 2001). This method is usually used by
environment planners and officers in analyzing the interaction between the location,
the development and the environmental impact. It permits various factors which cover
physical (topography and soil), social (land owner and value of land), and
environmental (sensitive areas) to be analyzed and used in helping the decisionmaking process of the location for an activity (Narimah Samat, 2007). The site
suitability analysis has been applied in a wide variety of situations including landfill
site selection (Lunkapis, 2004; Siddiqui, Everett, & Vieux, 1996; Wang, Qin, Li, &
Chen, 2009), land evaluation for peri-urban agriculture (Thapa & Murayama, 2008),
the urban aquaculture development (Hossain, Chowdhury, Das, Sharifuzzaman, &
Sultana, 2009), the Japanese scallop aquaculture selection potential site selection
(Radiarta, Saitoh, & Miyazono, 2008), public park selection (Zucca, Sharifi, &
Fabbri, 2008) and the urban development (Mohit & Ali, 2006).
By using the land suitability approach, M.Fauzi (2005) identified the best area for
school siting. She also successfully identified schools near to hazardous areas such as
flood and land erosion. Meanwhile, Abdullah (2008) identified two schools which
were located very near to the main road. The schools need to be relocated to a better
location that is more comfortable and safe for schools children. Aziz (2004)
conducted two suitability analysis using the integration of weighted linear

combination (WLC), multi criteria evaluation (MCE) and GIS to identified the most
critical schools and the most critical regions.
Several studies have focused on school sites issue. However, there are still lacks of
research for school site selection modeling that can safeguard school children safety.
This study is intended to improve the quality of the school locations decision and
solution by integrating the multi-criteria decision analysis and Geographic
Information System (GIS) into the decision making process.
2
2.1

Materials and methods

Study area

The Mukim Batu (Figure 1) located in Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (WPKL),
Malaysia which covers approximately 5300 ha was chosen as a case study. It has an
estimated population of 250,000 million in 2000. Located geographically between
3015- 3010 North and 101036 - 101041 East, it consists of 49 areas with Sentul
covers almost 13% of the area, followed by Jinjang Utara (10%), Segambut Jaya
(8%), Jinjang Selatan Tambahan (5.5 %), Kg Palimbayang (5.5%) and Segambut
(5%). The other area contributed less than 5% of the study area.
2.2

Identification of criteria and data collection

This research starts from reviewing, investigation and comparison of guidelines used
by local and other countries to find a complete and reliable list of criteria for school
site selection focusing on safe location. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique was used to organize the identified
criteria into a hierarchy structure before obtaining a judgment expertise in weighting
land suitability factors. Studies continue with the development of analysis model to
perform the spatial operation. Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework of the study.
2.3

School siting phase

2.3.1 Intelligence Phase

The intelligence phase has led to the definition and specification of the school. The
aim of this study is to determine the school location in a safe and healthy
environment. The investigation and comparisons between selected states guideline
has been conducted to identify parameters for suitable school siting. Ten parameters
have been identified for this purpose. They are the distance from industry areas, the
distance from commercial areas, the distance from the main road, air pollution index
(API) reading, noise level reading, land slope, height, flood prone, distance from
stream and the distance from an electrical transmission line. Table 1 defines the
criterion score for each parameter.
It is necessary to define the constraints that vetoed the suitability of an area for school
building. Constraint is a criterion that determines which areas should be excluded
from or included in suitability analysis. Table 2 defined the constraint criterion.

2.3.2 Collection and collation of data

The data are categorized to spatial data and attribute data. The spatial data includes
contour, flood, land use, orthophoto, road network, schools location, stream and
utility; attribute data includes API reading, monitoring station and school information.
The spatial data sources were obtained from DBKL, MyGDI in the form of paper map
and digital image. The digital image was then digitized with ArcGIS 9.2 and projected
to Selangor_Cassini format. The spatial data which was obtained from JUPEM and
JPWPKL was input directly after converting the format to ArcGIS software
(shapefile) and was projected to Selangor_Cassini. Meanwhile, the locations of
schools were obtained from DBKL and field survey using GPS Garmin tool
(GPSMAP 60Cx). The schools coordinate were input to the database using
MapSource software and their attributes were obtained from Educational
Management Information System. Seven air quality monitoring stations which cover
approximately the area of Mukim Batu, Kuala Lumpur namely; Country Heights
(Kajang), Pelabuhan Klang, Petaling Jaya, Shah Alam, SMK Seri Permaisuri
(Cheras) and SK Batu Muda (Batu Muda) were plotted from Google Earth. The daily
API readings from January 2009 to April 2009 were obtained from DOE website
(http://www.doe.gov.my). The records of most frequently API reading had been used
to represent the overall air quality for selected API stations. Noise readings for the
study area were not available. Surrogate data were used for representing the noise
level reading in the study area which is ranged from 49.3 to 62.7 dBA, after
considering the noise level of the area of Pelabuhan Klang, Petaling Jaya, Shah Alam,
Kuala Selangor and Kajang. For this study, the API stations as stated previously
would be used as surrogate noise stations.
2.3.3 GIS database design and development
A well design and develop database can help users to accurately generate analysis for
further used. GIS database should be fully prepared to do the GIS analysis. The
digitized data need to organize into GIS database to facilitate spatial modeling. The
data were edited, georeference and topology constructed for next step in GIS analysis.
The GIS design is categorized into conceptual, logical and physical design.
2.3.4 Design Phase
The design phase has led to the identification of a few potential sites based on the
specified criteria. This was obtained by three steps: first, the experts knowledge has
been used for giving the evaluation score for the defined criteria; a suitability map
was generated. Finally using the model builder in ArcView Spatial Analyst, a set of
potential school location was generated.

Using AHP to evaluate the defined criteria

The model structure for identifying suitable sites for safe school was built based on
hierarchical structures (Figure 3). There are ten criteria to meet the school safety
objective. To apply all the criteria in decision making process, Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) method was used. AHP which was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in
the 1970s is a process for ranking alternatives. A numerical score need to be

developed to rank each alternatives based on how good each alternative suits the
decision makers criterion. The relative importance for each criterion was set by
pairwise comparison using a range from 1 (equally important) through 9 (extremely
important). Scale for pairwise comparisons can be seen in Table. Reciprocal values
mean reverse level of importance for example 1/9 is identified as extremely non
important.
In this study, the identified criteria need to be rank in order to decide the best site for
school siting. Pairwise comparison was performed using Web-HIPRE, a Java based
multi-criteria decision support engine developed in System Analysis Laboratory at
Helsinki University of Technology (Web-HIPRE, 2007). Figure 4 shows the
comparison table for school safety analysis criteria.
For each criterion, scores are set out through discussions and interviewed with a group
of expertise. The result of this method is shown in Table 3.
2.3.5 Development of Suitability Map
The suitability map can be divided into constraint and factors. A constraint is a
criterion that determines which areas should be excluded from or included in the
suitability analysis. In this study the constraint were the reserve areas for electricity,
transportation, stream, park areas and land more than 60 m height. A factor is a
criterion that contributes to a certain degree to the suitability. In this study, the ten
criteria which were mentioned from the previous section will be used as the factors.
All the criteria and constraint has been input as GIS file in the personal geodatabase.
2.3.6 School Safety Suitability Model
In this study, ModelBuilder for ArcView/Spatial Analyst has been used for school
suitability model, which is well known as flowchart approach (Malczewski, 2004).
In the flowchart approach a school safety suitability model is constructed of
individual processes from input data, basic GIS operations, and derived data which
are then linked together. The creation of the model takes place in a user friendly GUI
with the help of drag-and-drop capabilities. Using weighted linear combination
(WLC), all the criterion score ( xij ) for m factors will be added and multiplied with
the relative important weight ( wm ) which was obtained from the AHP and pair wise
comparison,

Sij

using following formula:

Sij = xij.wm.cm
m =1

where

Sij = suitability score of i,j location

xij = criterion score for m factor of i,j location
wm = weightage of relative importance for m factor
5

cm = boolean value of constraint factor of i,j location

m = consideration criterion or factors
This process was done by giving the weight to all the inputs and percentage of
influence of each input. The higher percentage is a more influence of a particular
input will exist in the suitability model.
2.3.7 Choice Phase

Definition of new criteria

The last phase of this study is the evaluation and choice of alternative options. The
potential sites for the schools were evaluated using different set of criteria. For this
last phase, the area of schools building has been considered. According to JPBD
(1997) guideline, suitable area for primary school should be more than 2.4 hectare.
The area with less than 2.4 hectare has been filtered.

Evaluation Model

Model verification is important for data quality control and for testing the model.
Comparison between the model suitable safety sites with the proposed school location
provided by DBKL was carried out. The proposed school location was obtained from
DBKL in digital softcopy and was digitized for further analysis. The both sites
location were overlaid to determine how much the proposed school location matched
with the model output.
3

Results and Discussion

This study focused in safe school site selection. The potential sites should have
appropriate safety criteria in order to provide schools children and staff in safety and
healthy environment. Ten parameters contributed to safe location were identified (see
Table 12). The suitable area provided by JPBD for school building has also been used
for optimum selection. In this study, approximately 168 hectare of the potential area
(8%) was identified as score 5 (most-suitable), and this area was located on the North,
East and South of the region (Figure 5). There was 46% of the potential area
identified as suitable location (score 3 and 4) and 22% for less suitable location (1 and
2). The areas of more than 60 meter height contribute 24% of the potential site. (Score
0)
Verification was done by comparing the location of suggestion school location and
suitable sites obtained from the models. There were 7 locations that match with the
suitable sites model. It contributes 37% of overall suitable site location (score 3 and
4). There were two areas of DBKL proposed sites that fell in the constraint areas.
The other ten areas have less than 2.4 hectare. This contributes for unmatched site
selection between the both outputs (Figure 6)

Conclusion

The methodology that was developed and applied in this study has combined multicriteria evaluation technique with GIS in supporting a school site selection problem.
In this study a framework is provided to effectively design and evaluate alternative
sites for safety primary school location. For this kind of objective, a specific
methodology or a set of specific criteria to select the areas did not exist in the school
site selection guidelines provided by Department of Town and Country Planning
(JPBD) of Malaysia. The selection was mainly based on experts knowledge and
strongly influenced by the existing of the City Master Plans. The methodology
applied allows enhancing the role of this type of schools as an opportunity for a more
sustainable school planning. The main advantages of the methodology used in this
study are the efficient combination of multi-criteria evaluation with spatial data
analysis tools that support a better school site planning and provide a logical and
scientific foundation into which the values of decision makers and stakeholders can be
integrated.

References
Abdullah, N. (2008). Gis as a Tools to Identify Land Suitability for Primary School
Relocation. Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Alaska Department of Education. (1997). Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation
Handbook.
Retrieved
20
January
2009
from
http://www.eed.state.ak.us/Facilities/publications/SiteSelection.pdf
Aziz, A. (2004). Spatial Decision Support System For School Siting. Faculty of
Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan. (2009). Risalah
Maklumat Asas Pendidikan
California Department Of Education. (2004). School Site Selection and Approval
Guide.
Retrieved
20
January
2009
from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp
California Department Of Education. (2004). School Site Selection and Approval
Guide.
Retrieved
13
November
2008,
from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp
Church, R. L., & T.Murray, A. (2009). Business Site Selection, Location Analysis, and
GIS.
Department of Environment. (2004). The Planning Guidelines for Environmental
Noise Limits and Control.
Department of Environment Malaysia. (2007). Annual Report Department of
Enironmental 2007. (Ministry of National Resource and Environmental
Malaysia).
Department Of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia. (1997). Planning
Guidelines JPBD 19/97.
Georgia Department of Education, F. S. U. (2003). A Guide to School Site Selection.
Green, R. S., Smorodinsky, S., Kim, J. J., McLaughlin, R., & Ostro, B. (2004).
Proximity of California Public Schools to Busy Roads. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 112(1), 61-66.
Hossain, M. S., Chowdhury, S. R., Das, N. G., Sharifuzzaman, S. M., & Sultana, A.
(2009). Integration of GIS and multicriteria decision analysis for urban
aquaculture development in Bangladesh. Landscape and Urban Planning,
90(3-4), 119-133.
Indiana State Board of Education. (2002). School Facility Guidelines from
http://www.doe.state.in.us/stateboard/constguide.html

Joerin, F., Theviault, M., & Musy, A. (2001). Using GIS and outranking multicriteria
analysis for land-use suitability assessment. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 15(2), 153 - 174.
Lunkapis, G. J. (2004). GIS as Decision Support Tool for Landfills Siting. Paper
presented at the MAP Asia Conference 2004.
M.Fauzi, I. F. (2005). Analisis Perletakan Kemudahan Pendidikan Menggunakan
Sistem Maklumat Geografi (GIS). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Malczewski, J. (2004). GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview.
Progress in Planning, 62(1), 3-65.
Mohit, M. A., & Ali, M. M. (2006). Integrating GIS and AHP for Land Suitability
Analysis of Urban Development in a Secondary City of Bangladesh. Jurnal
Alam Bina, Jilid 8, No. 1.
Muhammad, M. J. (2008). EduGIS.KL Dalam Pengurusan JPWP Kuala Lumpur.
Paper presented at the Seminar Kebangsaan Pengurusan Maklumat Pendidikan
EMIS ke-IX, Bagan Lalang, Selangor.
Narimah Samat, T. M. (Ed.). (2007). Sistem Maklumat Geografi Dalam Analisis
Guna Tanah: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Public Schools of North Carolina. (1998). Land for Learning. Retreived 20 January
2009 from http://www.schoolclearinghouse.org/pubs/schsite.pdf
Radiarta, I. N., Saitoh, S.-I., & Miyazono, A. (2008). GIS-based multi-criteria
evaluation models for identifying suitable sites for Japanese scallop
(Mizuhopecten yessoensis) aquaculture in Funka Bay, southwestern
Hokkaido, Japan. Aquaculture, 284(1-4), 127-135.
City of Ryde, Slope Instability Risk Zones retrieved on Disember 2009 from
http://www.ryde.nsw,gov.au/WEB/SITE/RESOURCES/DOCUMENTS/Plann
ing/ slopeinsatabriskzone.pdf
Salvesen, D., Zambito, P., Hamstead, Z., & Wilson, B. (2008). Safe Schools:
Identifying Environmental Threats to Children Attending Public Schools in
North Carolina. Retrieved 10 Disember 2009 from http://www.ie.unc.edu
Siddiqui, M. Z., Everett, J. W., & Vieux, B. E. (1996). Landfill siting using
geographic information systems: A demonstration. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 122(6), 515-523.
Thapa, R. B., & Murayama, Y. (2008). Land evaluation for peri-urban agriculture
using analytical hierarchical process and geographic information system
techniques: A case study of Hanoi. Land Use Policy, 25(2), 225-239.
Wang, G., Qin, L., Li, G., & Chen, L. (2009). Landfill site selection using spatial
information technologies and AHP: A case study in Beijing, China. Journal of
Environmental Management, 90(8), 2414-2421.

Yong, N. S., Mukherjee, A., & Youn, F. K. (2008). Using Geospatial Model For
Managing Risk of Slope Failure in Singapore [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
January 8, 2010, from http://www.esrisingapore.com.sg
Zucca, A., Sharifi, A. M., & Fabbri, A. G. (2008). Application of spatial multi-criteria
analysis to site selection for a local park: A case study in the Bergamo
Province, Italy. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 752-769.

10

Table 1: Site Suitability Evaluation Criteria

Analysis

Criteria

School
Safety
Analysis
(0.5)

Distance
from
industry
area
Distance
from
commercial
area
Distance
from main
road
API reading

Sound Level
(Day Time)

Slope
(degree)
Proximity to
Flood prone

Distance
from stream

Proximity to
electrical
transmission
line
Height
Total Weight

Classification
0 - 500 m
500 1000 m
1000 1500 m
>1500 m
0 - 500 m
500 1000 m
1000 1500 m
>1500 m
0 150 m
150 300 m
300 450 m
> 450 m
0 50
51 100
101 200
> 200
0 - 50 dBA
51 - 55 dBA
56 - 60 dBA
> 61 dBA
0 - 10
> 10
0 - 500 m
500 1000 m
1000 1500 m
>1500 m
0 150 m
150 300 m
300 450 m
> 450 m
0 150 m
150 300 m
300 450 m
> 450 m
0 - 60
> 60

Standardzation
of Score ( xij )
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
4
1

Weight
( wm )
0.206

0.023

0.042

0.071

0.044

0.224

0.026

0.021

0.123

0.22
1.0

1- Not Suitable; 2 - Marginally Suitble 3 -Moderately Suitable; 4 - Highly

Suitable

11

Table 2: Constraint and Standardization

Constraint

Open space area

and recreational
No development
area
Education area
Road reserve
Stream reserve

Source
data
Land use

Standardization

Road map

Outside road reserve is standardized to 1, all

other value are standardized to 0.
Outside road reserve is standardized to 1, all
other value are standardized to 0.
Area less than 60 m height is standardized to 1,
all other value are standardized to 0.

Stream
Map
Contour
Map

Height

The 3 areas are standardized to 1, all others to 0

Table 3: Scale for pairwise comparisons

Numerical judgements
1
3
5
7
9
2,4,6,8
Reciprocals

Verbal judgements
Equal Importance
Moderately preferred
Strongly preferred
Very strongly preferred
Extremely preferred
Intermediate value between adjacent scales
For inverse comparion (when compromise is needed)

Table 4: Weightage for school safety analysis criteria

Criteria
Land Slope
Height
Distance from Industry area
Distance from Electrical Transmission Line
Air Pollution Reading (API)
Sound Level (Day Time)
Distance from Main road
Flood Prone
Distance from Commercial area
Distance from stream

Weight (%)
22.40%
22.00%
20.60%
12.30%
7.10%
4.40%
4.20%
2.60%
2.30%
2.10%
100.00%

12

Table 5. GIS database design

Administration
Topography
Hydrology
Monitoring Station
Transportation
Utility
Land
Education

Mukim Batu Boundary

Contour map, Slope map, Elevation map
Stream, Lake
API Station, Noise Station
Road
Electrical Transmission Line
Land Use
School

Figure 1: Case Study Area

13

Main Goal

Criteria
Distance from industry area
Distance from commercial area
Distance from main road
Distance from Electricity Transmission
Line

Safe school selection in Mukim Batu

API reading
Sound Level
Distance from stream
Land Slope
Height
Flood Prone

Figure 2: A hierarchical modeling scheme to identify suitable site for primary

school location in Mukim Batu

Figure 3: Pairwise comparison matrix for school safety analysis criteria

14

Figure 4 : Suitability Map from Model Output

Some of the DBKL

proposed sites that
fell in the
constraint area

Some
of
the
DBKL proposed
sites that overlay
nicely
with
suitable site from
model output.

Figure 5: The suitability map intersects with DBKL proposed site

15